Entries tagged with “specific intent robbery” from Harmfulerror

State v. Harte - The Court, sitting en banc, affirms an order of a district court partially granting a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a death penalty case.  The Court rejects the State's argument that McConnell v. State (felony murder cannot be used as the sole basis for liability for first degree murder and also used as an aggravating circumstance) was wrongly decided.  The Court also rejects the State's argument that there should be a new trial, rather than just a new penalty hearing, in capital cases in which the sole aggravating circumstance is found invalid under McConnell.  The majority opinion is authored by Justice Maupin and joined by Justices Gibbons, Douglas and Cherry.  Justices Hardesy, Parraguirre and Saitta concur but express a belief that there are three fundamental flaws in McConnell's analytical framework.

Hernandez v. State - The Court, sitting en banc, affirms a district court order denying a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a capital case.  In doing so, the Court declines to extend McConnell v. State to bar the dual use of torture as a theory of first-degree murder and as an aggravating circumstance to support a death sentence.  The Court, however, finds the aggravating circumstance of burglary to be invalid under McConnell, reweighs the aggravating and mitigating evidence and affirms the death sentence.  The Court rejects other post-conviction claims.  Justice Cherry dissents in part after finding that the defendant should have received a new penalty hearing because the jury may have imposed a sentence of less than death without the invalid aggravating circumstance.

Cortinas v. State - The Court (Justices Hardesty, Parraguirre & Douglas) holds that traditional harmless-error review applies when a general verdict based on multiple theories of liability may rest on a legally invalid alternative theory.  The Court also reaffirms its prior holdings that robbery is a general intent offense.

Rubio v. State - Counsel's affirmative misrepresentations of immigration consequences is an exception to the general rule that deportation is a collateral consequence that does not affect the voluntariness of a guilty plea.  Misrepresentations by a court interpreter, however, are not an exception to the general rule.  The Court also rules that the district court abused its discretion in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Opinions in civil cases: 

Rivero v. Rivero -

Cook v. Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center -

Five Star Capital Crop. v. Ruby -

Estate of LoMastro v. American Family Ins. -

Village League v. State, Bd. of Equalization -

Mesagate HOA v. City of Fernley -

Lehrer McGovern Bovis v. Bullock Insulation